do you have loved ones on the government dole?

and if so how do you reconcile this fact with your support of Ron Paul.

And by government dole, I don't mean perfectly competent person working for the government or a company that has a lot of government contracts. I mean someone who gets welfare.

My brother now gets SSI, he's very sweet, likes Ron Paul and dreams of having a family one day. But he has Aspergers, could not get his Associates degree after failing biology 3 times, is incredibly naive and has struggled to even hold an industrial cleaning position. He is not entirely incapable of work, he's been successful working in food service at a nursing home, has worked for a while as a amusement park cleaner (including this summer when he also worked packing books) The book packing job he still has through a non profit known as Suburban Adult Services.

When him and I do chores he needs a lot of directions, otherwise he'll stand around or work really slowly. I don't think he's slow on purpose, either he is incapable of focusing or he is a product of being held to a different lower his whole life.

Anyway, I guess my point is that I am conflicted about whether or not we should have government welfare and whether or not my brother needs it.

My sis gets food stamps and lives rent-free at our parents' house. (she is obese too, btw) I find it disgusting because it enables her to sit around working part time and watching TV most of the rest of the day. It's such a wasted life. At the same time, she's always had problems keeping a job. She got fired from a kennel job, FFS. There's nothing stopping her from getting another job and growing up...she just refuses to. The regime is destroying at least one generation.

Originally Posted by Ron Paul

The government is incapable of doing what it's supposed to do. A job like the provision of security is something best left to private institutions.

My sis gets food stamps and lives rent-free at our parents' house. (she is obese too, btw) I find it disgusting because it enables her to sit around working part time and watching TV most of the rest of the day. It's such a wasted life. At the same time, she's always had problems keeping a job. She got fired from a kennel job, FFS. There's nothing stopping her from getting another job and growing up...she just refuses to. The regime is destroying at least one generation.

I'll say this, the vast majority of the people I know on welfare do not have my sympathies.

A libertarian society with a free market and sound currencies would provide ample jobs and cheap basic needs. I am also a follower of Hayek and believe there is a place for welfare*, and I believe that charities and fraternal organizations could fill the void in the absence of force and outright theft.

*There is no reason why the government cannot have departments and full-fledged programs that are run EXACTLY as charities, right down to the reliance on volunteer contributions, and headlong competition with other charities -- and automatic dissolution when they fail to get the funding they entreat others for. I absolutely love the notion of charities and charitable concerns. But there is NOTHING charitable about taking by force and giving to others. It is theft, no more no less, and insulates people from concern for the rights and concerns of others.

Government "charity" is nothing but one of many lies covering an even bigger foundational lie, because if we had a free market, with currencies that were not deliberately debased, the Very Real But Nonetheless Artificially Inflicted Need for charities would rapidly and dramatically diminish--naturally, as a matter of course.

Once, when a discussion of taxes came up, I had a relative state emphatically that he got more back in his refund than he paid in taxes.

A little digging finally uncovered the fact that he and his wife had received an "Earned Income Tax Credit" because their income was so low. (Which is generally what happens when you don't work!! - but I digress.)

I cracked off something like, "Well, I'm glad the cash I had to fork over went to some one I know, at least..."

Yep, once you insulate humans from humans, a lot of them behave like so many sociopathic monsters.

Funny how a guilt trip for not caring comes so easily on the payment-extraction side, but you're not even considered a contributor, let alone the unwilling victim of extrortion, once those wonderful funds are COMPLETELY LAUNDERED, erasing all traces of the blood and identities of those who make them possible, past, present and future.

Once, when a discussion of taxes came up, I had a relative state emphatically that he got more back in his refund than he paid in taxes.

A little digging finally uncovered the fact that he and his wife had received an "Earned Income Tax Credit" because their income was so low. (Which is generally what happens when you don't work!! - but I digress.)

I cracked off something like, "Well, I'm glad the cash I had to fork over went to some one I know, at least..."

He said, "It wasn't your cash. It came from the government!"

And he meant it. God help me, he meant it!

Shit like that makes me want to laugh and cry at the same time. I hear this kind of nonsense from my mother (currently drawing "her" soc security "retirement" money) all the time.

Originally Posted by Ron Paul

The government is incapable of doing what it's supposed to do. A job like the provision of security is something best left to private institutions.

I'll say this, the vast majority of the people I know on welfare do not have my sympathies.

There a ton of them that do deserve sympathies. Our government has purposely created a situation where an increasing number of people don't have a choice but go on welfare. Many are 20 somethings that made a dumb decision to waste their youth instead of bettering their position in life. But even these people could make a living at something to support themselves if the government wasn't purposely nose diving this plane.

Last edited by John F Kennedy III; 12-03-2012 at 11:27 PM.

Originally Posted by Origanalist

There would be riots in the streets, if boobus gave one shit about his honor.

Shit like that makes me want to laugh and cry at the same time. I hear this kind of nonsense from my mother (currently drawing "her" soc security "retirement" money) all the time.

On the other side of the coin, if you're working and paying taxes into a system that you believe does more harm than good to society, how do you reconcile that with libertarianism?

.

"Every great new thought was opposed. Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was considered foolish. The airplane was considered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won."

It seems like very person I've ever met or heard of who seemed to have a bona fide need for charity was someone who had either a medical issue (either themselves or a dependent) or was just not a competent person (really not capable of living independently). That means everyone else I've met or heard of who was receiving charity was receiving it because they simply consiously made decisions that got them where they are, and they didn't care, such as having multiple babies out of wedlock or staying in/repeatedly marrying destructive persons (associating with someone who helped ruin their lives).

"Sorry, guys, the rebellion is off. We couldn't get a rebellion permit.""What is this, a home owner's association? Why the need to try and control other people's behavior?"

Once, when a discussion of taxes came up, I had a relative state emphatically that he got more back in his refund than he paid in taxes.

A little digging finally uncovered the fact that he and his wife had received an "Earned Income Tax Credit" because their income was so low. (Which is generally what happens when you don't work!! - but I digress.)

I cracked off something like, "Well, I'm glad the cash I had to fork over went to some one I know, at least..."

He said, "It wasn't your cash. It came from the government!"

And he meant it. God help me, he meant it!

I worked doing income tax returns for a few years and was amazed at how many people get back more than they pay in. I had no idea that so many people were in that situation.

"Sorry, guys, the rebellion is off. We couldn't get a rebellion permit.""What is this, a home owner's association? Why the need to try and control other people's behavior?"

I'm kind of pragmatic. If you live in a prison camp you eat prison food and smile. You can write letters to amnesty international, you can protest and get beat, you can go on hunger strike... but in the end, honestly, when in Rome be a Roman. This is the USSA, take a handout.... at the very least take a subsidized solar panel. If you don't your neighbor will; besides, when you get down to it, you're doing it already:

The sun is shining on Miami Beach, and I wake up in subsidized housing. I throw on a T-shirt made of subsidized cotton, brush my teeth with subsidized water and eat cereal made of subsidized grain. Soon the chaos begins, two hours of pillow forts, dance parties and other craziness with two hyper kids and two hyper Boston terriers, until our subsidized nanny arrives to watch our 2-year-old. My wife Cristina then drives to her subsidized job while listening to the subsidized news on public radio. I bike our 4-year-old to school on public roads, play tennis on a public court...

I'll say this, the vast majority of the people I know on welfare do not have my sympathies.

My kid's on the dole. It takes +/-100k in subsidized meds to keep him alive annually. It might be 10k in meds, that I might be able to afford in a freemarket... but its not a free market... the government pumps money into medical care which artificially jacks the costs of everything. Not to mention the regulations. Am I supposed to be a libertarian martyr/hero and watch my kid bleed out to say I proudly denied a government benefit? My retarded aunt's on the dole. She in her 60's sleeps 5 hours a day and has to be baby sat the rest of the time to keep her from playing with her own shit and busting everything in sight. She's in a government program. Am I supposed to be the hero in my family and take her in to save the tax payer? My grandmother is on the dole. She's batshit crazy, dementia... been that way for years. She sleeps about 3 hours a night; needs to be baby sat... prone to nuisance 911 call and flushing anything that fits down the toilet; she put in over a 100 calls to johnny law and 2 dozen to the plumber the year we checked her in; government program. Should I check her out of her taxpayer funded home too? Hell, I could stop working... plumber/electrician/carpenter... give back all the checks and do nothing but wipe my aunt and grandmother's ass, watch my boy cry, and lose my home. Is any charity in their right mind going to step in and help me if I deny my "benefits"? Do I have any chance coping with two crazies and a free bleeder under my roof without assistance?

I'm not saying there isn't another way.. I'm not saying the libertarian principles and charity can't bring free market solutions... I am saying it is what it is; this is the system we live under: Socialism. An average blue collar able bodied man is barely able to keep a roof over the head of a small nuclear family the way things are. So you take what you need; leverage the regulatory environment to your own self interests. You think the banks are shy about taking subsidies? The energy industry? The pharmaceuticals?

Want a real brain twister... when I work 40 hour weeks... I can usually make it 2 weeks without dosing my kid to the tune of $10K on .gov's tab. When I work 10-20 hour weeks, sometimes I can get my kid to go 3 months between $10k doses through more intense double parenting (mom's stay at home). When I'm working full time I can make about $800 on a good week; or (over 2 weeks) about $1600 before my kid needs a 10k dose. If I stay at home more, 3 months part time lets me earn $3600 (twice as much) before my kid needs his next $10k dose; I've in a sense saved the government 50k (and my kid some pain) by sacrificing $6000 in personal pay. As much as I don't want to take a government benefit when I don't "need it".... I cost the government LESS (and my kid's healthier) by taking $400/mo in food stamps to stay home and care for my kid; keeping him off his meds. Trust me, that little paradox fux w/ me; before my boy had issues I never took anything from the government... well... lets be honest... like you, I've always worn subsidized cotton t-shirts.

let the flames ensue

It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen

to set brush fires in peoples minds! Revolution is Action upon Revelation!

There's a difference between normal survival reactions to an abnormal situation, and presuming that such behavior is some kind of consent, or even causal element, to that situation. Like idiots that go into grocery stores, see rising prices, and knee-jerk blame it on the greed of the grocer.

You were spot on with, "If you live in a prison camp you eat prison food and smile." We were all born into slavery conditions in a glorified prison camp.

I finally saw a couple of the "Saw" movies with some of my nieces and nephews, and was astounded by all the inane crap coming out of their mouths. They couldn't even step outside that OBVIOUSLY CONTRIVED BOX to see that the only true villain in that film was Jigsaw -- the maker of all the artificial torture tests. But there they sat, all their comments and judgments centering around the personality foibles of Jigsaw's victims. This person had it coming because he was a bastard. That one should watched out better, while the other one was stupid for trying something stupid. The box itself: fully accepted. All disbelief suspended, that was "the universe".

And that's the nature of our economic and political system. People inside an artificial box that never should have been created, but once inside the box, all the focus goes onto all the mostly normal (even predictable if you think about it) actions and reactions to completely abnormal situations. And nobody bothers to question the questions, or the framework of the box itself. It might as well be a womb to most. And few realize that even if all behavior suddenly changed, the box and all the abnormal shit it inflicts onto everyone, would remain, and it would flair up all over again.

The fact is, humans are adapted to a degree of hardship and survival--and calling it normal. And there are other humans that realize this, consciously or subconsciously, and are there to capitalize on that fact.

My mother is on social security and was "benefitting" from food stamps. Her food stamp benefit was $17.00 per month. I insisted that she refuse the food stamps and I would send her cash in the range of $50.00 to $100.00 a month. She agreed!

Folks on welfare live better than I do from my observation. I worked at a pharmacy part-time and observed people on Medicaid who thinks that everything is free. I kindly inform them that nothing is free and of course their nose quickly turns the other way. People's thought process is so disfunctional that it makes me want to vomit!

*There is no reason why the government cannot have departments and full-fledged programs that are run EXACTLY as charities, right down to the reliance on volunteer contributions, and headlong competition with other charities -- and automatic dissolution when they fail to get the funding they entreat others for. I absolutely love the notion of charities and charitable concerns. But there is NOTHING charitable about taking by force and giving to others. It is theft, no more no less, and insulates people from concern for the rights and concerns of others.

Wow, I disagree with you on something....
There is a very simple reason why government can't run this style of charity. Not that I'm a Molyneux fan, but he's absolutely right when he says that "government IS force".
If you remove force from the equation, it ceases to be a state entity. All the state can do absent force is make declarations which are completely unbackable.

If congress passed a bill that said "We think competing groups ought to form charitable organizations voluntarily that will attempt to address problem X, but we're not going to allocate money to them, we're not going to hire anyone, we're not going to hold anyone accountable for progress, and we're not going to do anything when the public decides not to support one of those organizations any longer", well, can it be said to be a state entity at all?

I don't think so. Additionally, historically the state doesn't even figure out that X is a problem people want to address until the market has already figured that out and started implementing solutions. People work out their own futures, and then the state swoops in and grabs power. This is always the pattern.

I think even allowing the state to make ex cathedra pronouncements on charity is letting the encyclopedia salesman wedge his foot in the door. Our rulers might be largely stupid but they're also cunning. If we allowed them to call for charities to be formed, it would take them three decades maximum to figure out they're holding a big freakin' gun, and that the lamest of excuses about a charity's performance would allow a populist takeover.

There are no crimes against people.
There are only crimes against the state.
And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

One reason is that the government seems to have gotten more openhanded with those claiming vague ailments. Eberstadt points out that in 1960, only one-fifth of disability benefits went to those with "mood disorders" and "musculoskeletal" problems. In 2011, nearly half of those on disability voiced such complaints.

It's A Job

"It is exceptionally difficult — for all practical purposes, impossible," writes Eberstadt, "for a medical professional to disprove a patient's claim that he or she is suffering from sad feelings or back pain."

These are not mutually exclusive, I use both in arguing against welfarism:

B) Capitalism would provide ample resources and cheap products.
C) There would be an increase in private charity due to less taxation.

However, I voted B) because I think it is the more important of the two and allows C) to take place.

I believe both of these to be empirically true statements, I also don't kid myself in to believing there would be no starvation. I just don't believe it merits mass-theft and redistribution of resources, which ultimately just causes more human suffering and is an abomination ethically.

"We do have some differences and our approaches will be different, but that makes him his own person. I mean why should he [Rand] be a clone and do everything and think just exactly as I have. I think it's an opportunity to be independent minded. We are about 99% [the same on issues]." Ron Paul

ALL of my siblings are on the dole. Like presence, in the post above, the situations are difficult. Two are "mentally challenged" and two have children with disabilites (adopted) that receive Medicare. I was once very bitter about this and one sibling was very hurt by my words. Now, I tell myself each day that it is through God's grace that we are well employed, healthy, etc.

On the other side of the coin, if you're working and paying taxes into a system that you believe does more harm than good to society, how do you reconcile that with libertarianism?

What do you mean by "reconcile"? Libertarianism generally recognizes that these systems are destructive to everyone and proposes avoiding paying into it as much as possible. However, there are some schools of thought that say if you are forced into a situation where taking welfare is inevitable, getting that money out of the hands of the regime is not so bad. That's how RP rationalizes voting for getting cash back to his district in various forms. I'm trying to be open-minded about the situation. The system is obviously unsustainable, but stopping it suddenly would really hurt people with genuine and severe disabilities-unless that sudden transition included creating charities that can handle the poor and disabled in rational ways.

Originally Posted by Ron Paul

The government is incapable of doing what it's supposed to do. A job like the provision of security is something best left to private institutions.

Your poll stinks. I am a paleoconservative and do NOT believe in welfare. Where did you come up with the idea that Paleocons advocated welfare?

“I have many friends in the libertarian movement who look down on those of us who get involved in political activity,”
he acknowledged, but "eventually, if you want to bring about changes … what you have to do is participate in political
action.” -- Ron Paul

"We do have some differences and our approaches will be different, but that makes him his own person. I mean why should he [Rand] be a clone and do everything and think just exactly as I have. I think it's an opportunity to be independent minded. We are about 99% the same on issues." "People Try To Drive Wedges Between Rand And Me." --Ron Paul

Wow, I disagree with you on something....
There is a very simple reason why government can't run this style of charity. Not that I'm a Molyneux fan, but he's absolutely right when he says that "government IS force".
If you remove force from the equation, it ceases to be a state entity. All the state can do absent force is make declarations which are completely unbackable.

If congress passed a bill that said "We think competing groups ought to form charitable organizations voluntarily that will attempt to address problem X, but we're not going to allocate money to them, we're not going to hire anyone, we're not going to hold anyone accountable for progress, and we're not going to do anything when the public decides not to support one of those organizations any longer", well, can it be said to be a state entity at all?

The part I put in bold is the part I am not suggesting at all. It wouldn't be a case of "We think others should" for anything at all. Screw what the state thinks anyone "ought" to do.

And Yes, it could be said to be a state entity. And like any privately run entity, it can live or starve based on the support it receives voluntarily. I don't see the state, in the ideal sense, as "force". Not as a matter of principle (i.e., "If it's not a form of force, it's not the state."). That very premise, if universal, nullifies the concept of the consent of the governed.

There are useful functions for which a state is uniquely suited, as a NEVER-for-profit entity that serves the common good. And for me the common good has nothing to do with aggregate-anything at all. The governing assumption for "common good" would be in terms of access and equal benefit to all participating individuals, and ONLY insofar as it is not to the detriment of non-participating individuals.

An example of this would be a US Mint, (as originally designed loosely speaking). That is something that is

a) freely accessible to all
b) of equal benefit or cost to each
c) serves the public interests of all participating individuals, and
d) ONLY those individuals that participate.

No force involved, no guarantees of success or failure, and nothing wrong with that. The only problem with the US Mint, and it's another issue entirely, is that it was not a competing entity. And that's where force was misapplied, despite intentions. The US Mint, even with seigniorage to cover minting costs, was, ostensibly, a not-for-profit state entity.

Additionally, historically the state doesn't even figure out that X is a problem people want to address until the market has already figured that out and started implementing solutions. People work out their own futures, and then the state swoops in and grabs power. This is always the pattern.

I agree, as our coinage acts were a result of just that. But that doesn't constrain the nature of an ideal state in my mind. The coinage acts got it wrong only insofar as they used force to make declarations of market exchange values by fiat (as one metal against another). Otherwise, I don't see the idea that reliable universal standards (AS MARKET OPTIONS ONLY) could be set as being outside the purview of what I would consider an ideal state.

I think even allowing the state to make ex cathedra pronouncements on charity is letting the encyclopedia salesman wedge his foot in the door. Our rulers might be largely stupid but they're also cunning. If we allowed them to call for charities to be formed, it would take them three decades maximum to figure out they're holding a big freakin' gun, and that the lamest of excuses about a charity's performance would allow a populist takeover.

I confess you have me there. I'm still not off that dime, but it would be lame of me not to acknowledge that just about everywhere the state camel gets its nose in the market tent, everyone it was intended to protect ends up suffering as a result.

OK, OK, "Put the gun down, lieutenant, we're just having a conversation!" LOL

I don't have a problem with most welfare programs. There are much more costly, much more damaging programs that should be cut before the social safety net. That said, no - none of my family members are "on the dole."

Never once borrowed any Fed-inflated currency that got its value from diluting the value of all other like currency in existence, huh? Bully for you and yours. It's a rare flock of dodo birds that can accomplish that.